The problem is, that the ABC article was not based on data from the Department of Social Services. Rather, it was based on research compiled for a life insurers lobby group, whose board are all CEOs of insurance companies.
Fri 8 May 2026 14.00 AEST
Photo: AAP Image/James Ross
It’s not often you see a news article with a headline so shockingly wrong as we did this week from an article on the ABC’s website.
An article by national work reporter Bronwyn Herbert had the headline “More than 8 million people rely on income support, driven by a growing number of mental health claims”.
That headline was wrong.
It’s not “misleading”, not “needs more context”, not “views are contested”.
It was wrong. A straight-out factual error so disgraceful that the entire article should be taken down.
Often, when big numbers are mentioned, you need to go searching for some data to just check, even if you suspect an error. This time I didn’t because I was already working on an article for The Point, fact-checking a news article written in The Australian last Sunday about increasing income support.
In that article, the journalist noted that “1,365,280 working-age Australians were receiving JobSeeker, Youth Allowance (Other) and single parenting payments” and that “the welfare cohort peaked at 1,624,269 during the pandemic in August 2020.
So, it was a bit of a shock that suddenly a number had risen from 1.4m to 8m in the space of three days.
The problem is that the ABC article was not based on data from the Department of Social Services (DSS) (you can get that here). Rather, it was based on research compiled for a life insurers lobby group, the “Council of Australian Life Insurers”, and whose board are all CEOs of insurance companies.
If that has not got your Spidey Senses tingling, then wait till you discover what the 8m includes.
It is not 8m people on the Disability Support Pension (DSP), which you might think, given the headline’s claims about mental health.
It’s not 8m people on Jobseeker.
It’s not even the 1.36m on Jobseeker, Youth Allowance and Single parenting payments, which The Australian correctly took from the DSS data, plus those on DSP (that would only get you to about 2.6m).
Nope.
Here is how the ABC got to 8m on “income support” (my emphasis):
“The report found demand had increased across all 11 of Australia’s income support systems, spanning employer-provided sick leave and workers’ compensation to social security payments, superannuation and life insurance claims.”
Hang on. Superannuation? Life insurance? That’s not government paid income support.
And wait… did you say, “sick leave”?
Yep. The article continues:
“Employers remain the biggest contributor, with paid sick leave supporting around 7.5 million Australians, typically for short periods of about three weeks.”
What?
Sick leave, which is part of a work contract, which is mandated by law, and which is paid by your employer, has never been counted as “income support”.
Never!
The inherent and irredeemable bias of the research is given away by the suggestion that income support also includes “life insurance claims”.
Who might have an interest in suggesting that mental illness is causing an increase in life insurance claims, which needs to be addressed by government?
Yeah, maybe the lobby group for…. checks notes… life insurers!
Perhaps someone in the ABC twigged to this, because the following lines were amended (without explanation) 6 hours after publication to become: (new words in italics)
CALI — whose members have a direct commercial interest in reducing long‑term income protection claims — argues earlier intervention is critical.
The report found demand had increased across all 11 of Australia’s income support systems, spanning employer-provided sick leave and workers’ compensation to social security payments, superannuation and life insurance claims.
While around 8 million Australians receive some form of income support each year, the vast majority — about 7.5 million — are accessing more employer provided sick leave, typically for short periods of around three weeks, rather than government welfare payments such as JobSeeker or the disability support pension.”
On Friday, presumably after more criticism, the ABC changed the headline to “More than 8 million people access income support including sick leave, driven by a growing number of mental health claims”. That is still pretty terrible. They also added a note at the bottom that “Editor’s note 7/05/2026: The article was updated to further emphasise that income support includes sick leave.”
I would have thought that if the ABC wanted to be accurate, it would admit that income support does not include sick leave.
The problem with such articles is that mental health is an important issue, but the sloppy way this is framed feeds into the conservative lie that the number of people on government support is growing out of control.
So, let me give you the data.
In March, there were 2.6m people on Jobseeker, DSP, parenting payments, carer payments, Youth Allowance, and Special Benefits:
So, we can dispense with the 8 million.
But what about the suggestion that it has risen? After all, The Australian used the correct numbers, but suggests this shows something needs to be done to fix the problem.
The best way is to measure the numbers relative to the working age population. Because yes there are about 400,000 more people on these income supports than was the case before the pandemic. But Australia’s population has also increased in that time.
In January 2020, 10.7 people per 100 Australian adults were on one of those payments. Now it is 11.3.
Yes, that is more, but it is lower than it was any time before 2018 (going back to 2012, which is as far back as the data goes)
Is 11.3 people per 100 bad? Maybe. I have no idea. Maybe it is better than 10.7 because it suggests more people are able to access assistance.
Or is it bad that there are now 724,890 people on the full-rate of DSP of $1,200.90 a fortnight, which is lower than the Henderson poverty line of $1,401.78?
What about Jobseeker? Is it bad that it has risen? Maybe. If you think it is bad, complain to the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) who think there should be even more people on it. And perhaps also complain about the fact that 636,610 Australians are on the full rate of Jobseeker, which is just $817 a fortnight (including the energy supplement).
Mental health is a major issue – and very much so since the pandemic. And few would argue that the government could do more to assist with earlier intervention.
But let’s not promote that cause by using right-wing tropes that income support is rising out of control and that something needs to be done to reduce their numbers.
Rather, we should be wondering if those on income support are being forced to live in poverty and despair, and just how much that is contributing to issues such as mental health.
Advertisement
The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has released its first annual “human rights health check” to track Australia’s progress in protecting human rights and highlight persistent gaps. The 2026 assessment cautioned that “global and local trends are eroding democracy” and said Australia lacks adequate safeguards to respond to the challenges.
In the lead-up to the federal budget, “intergenerational equity” has re-emerged as one of the dominant frames in Australia’s economic debate. We are told that younger Australians are being left to pick up the bill for an ageing population. On its face, this argument sounds true. There are real inequities in the system. But the way intergenerational equity is being used in public debate should give us pause.
